April 19, 2009

"President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government. Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes" [writes Major Garrett at FOXNews.com.]

Notes, eh?

America responsible for evils of world.

Ortega angry.

I'm bored.

Communism... good for Cuba? Wd b much more successful if not for U.S. evil.

Racism

expansionist policy of U.S.

Look serious. Pretend these are real notes. Listen thoughtfully.

Sandinistas... Contras... check info

Look thoughtful

He can't blame me. I was 3.

When is this idiot going to shut up?

Boooorrrrringggg

ADDED: Actually, Obama said "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old." That rhetoric sounded familiar. Remember this?

IN THE COMMENTS: Maguro said:

Not sure why he needed to take notes since he listened to the same sermon at Trinity Church for 20 years. You'd think he'd have it memorized by now.

Well, John, a ringing defense of his country might have been nice, and would have been second nature to most of those who have inhabited his office before him. Instead, we get a lame joke suggesting that he thinks it was all about HIM.

"To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."

Actually, the president misspoke on the sequence of events in Cuba. The invasion of CIA-trained rebels at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba occurred in April 1961. Obama was born August 4, 1961.Or. maybe Obama believes life begins at conception or at least the second trimester?

Ortega's gang won't stop until they have taken Canada after they finish us off. Let's hope the Deranged Military Veterans with Guns are not disarmed and locked up before the new President's Open Door policy for Hispanic revolutionaries looking for love... I mean loot... has come in full force. If the Bank down the street decided to accept robberies, like we accept pirates off Africa's coast, than the only crime against the State's new one man Ruler will become "being a traditional American". Obama is acting out a Fifth columnist's role, not a Protector US President's role. Somebody needs to tell him that Nicaragua is not a play place for Harvard professors, but it's the real world where guns are the only rule. His spell over us will not stop the Ortega gang once it takes charge.

"So what should he have done?"He should not have attended this meeting of powerless tin-pot socialist dictators.

What did the administration expect would happen? That the path to the meeting room would be strewn with rose petals so the Annointed One's feet need not touch the dirty floor? That America would be showered with praise, adulation and good will by petty despots?

Obama did not object to Ortega's comments because he doesn't disagree with them. He views America pre 01/20/2009 as an evil place, just as Ortega does.

"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."

Obama is the President of the United States.

But when his county is insulted, his 1st (and 2nd and 3rd) impulse is not to defend the honor of his country, but accept the insult, divert it to what is to him a foreign entity - the United States - and then elevate himself above his own country.

I'm thinking whether the President would have been silent in response to a fascist thug condemning America for its "decades long cultural decadence and promotion of homosexuality, radical feminism and perversion through Hollywood and its movies"?

I'm joining the he did the right thing crowd. Absorb. Listen. This was their moment in the spotlight. That sort has gotten power again and a voice in these meetings. Making more of a scene, like the king of Spain did, would feel good but ultimately not do anything and might cause short term issues.

The bigger question is what will Obama now do? His campaign was built on talking and changing the direction of the Bush administration, mostly because in his career he talked with other senators and local community leaders. He is now getting a taste, an honest bad taste, of what it means to 'talk' with demagogues and caudillos, who run truly populist governments, have a lot of local power, and who help undermine their own nations--as a history of South America shows. Blame the other, consolidate power, abuse power, get overthrown in violent uprising, repeat. Meanwhile the poor get abused, ignored, thrashed, killed, while the rich take advantage.

No one wins except momentary pride by those who seek to exploit the poor for their own egos.

Obama cannot win that game, not in their own backyards.

But, he can adjust his foreign policies as a response. No big gesture that makes everyone smile. A lot of little ones that might isolate such people as Ortega and Chavez, and bring substantive change.

Obama needed this. This blast of reality that comes in hour long boring demagoguery.

Ortega had a little tantrum, and Obama did the most constructive thing in such situations - he sat and did nothing.It's probable that he doesn't have the necessary instincts, knowledge or adeptness to adequately or appropriately respond.

About to say something outrageously unpopular here (and note, I'm not an Obama fan and did not vote for him).

Ortega had a point, he had two or three. The history of US involvement in the political processes of Latin America (especially central america) is pretty awful and not anything for the US to be proud of.

When you begin dialogues with someone your group has screwed over you're gonna get a few earfuls before you can get into more productive areas. The quickest way to get to possibly productive dialogue is to let the other side rant a long while, nod wisely, indicate gently that your patience is not in fact unending and forget about 'ringing defenses' of your side.

I'll reserve full judgement until I know more, but in the short versions of this I've come across Obama's reaction is about pitch perfect (and I repeat: I've never been an Obama fan and did not vote for him).

Latin Americans are innocent, child-like creatures. They don't know any better, so they're not responsible for their own actions. As an advanced civilization, the US does know better and so must accept responsibility for everything that happens down there, including Ortega's (alleged!) molesting of little girls.

It's been almost 3 months, and as far as I can tell, we don't even have any new enemies. Well, the pirates.

I guess.

But other than that, nothing. Where is the bluster? I bet there are tons of evil foreigners out there, getting a pass from this clown. "President". Yeah, right. We all know that the president's job is to publicly insult the "enemies of freedom". How's he ever going to get anything done if he doesn't make a list of 3 evil countries? It could be more, but at least give us three. An axis, you know?

Instead, he's up there, going to summits, not disrupting speeches, shaking hands with heads of state. That's no way to lead. No way to lead the FOX nation, anyway.

Well, our president might not be brave enough, but I am. So a hearty "up yours" to any foreign leader, democratically elected or not, that blames the USA for its imperial meddling. That stuff happened a long time ago.

Obama: "The United States too often, and as a deep lover of my country I am not happy saying this, supported oligarchies in Latin America against the interest and hopes of the Latin American people."

"We were deeply and tragically wrong."

"But it is equally deeply and tragically wrong to replace one set of rulers with another set of rulers. Substituting one oligarchy for another is a betrayal of the hopes of the peoples of America, North and South and so I am here to listen but also to talk about those principles of self-government that unite us all..."

Et cetera, et cetera...

He should have this boilerplate response in his head.

Not real hard if a knucklehead like me can come up with something in five minutes.

I like how Obama has the habit of changing his own biography to fit a narrative. Here he is falsely claiming to be born after the Bay of Pigs Invasion; in the past he has falsely said his father was brought here by Kennedy policies.

Makes you wonder if his two biographies should be in the fiction section.

Ths has the tag "Obama stumbles." So what should he have done?I can think of a few responses. One would be to note that If Mr Ortega is looking for broad and long-term historical force which have held back the people of Latin America he should look at the traditions of the Catholic Church, Spanish colonialism rather than the CIA and multi-national corporations. All of the former Spanish colonies have had big problems getting capitalism to work effectively. The culture and traditions of Spanish government and the Catholic Church create tendencies toward corruption and authoritarianism whether the practitioners are right-wing or left-wing.In central America there are other traditions that are not often recognized. When the Spanish arrive some 500 years ago, ritual human sacrifice was practiced by most of the native American cultures in Central America. Most of the central American countries have had long term problems with human rights abuses. Maybe old habits die slowly.Of course for Obama to say any of this would be undiplomatic. Diplomacy is way over-rated.

JAC wrote: "If he had given a "ringing defense of his country," he wouldn't have gotten any credit for it by the commenters on this blog."

I disagree. Many of us gave him proper accolades for dealing with the pirates. For many of us, it is not the man, but his policies. When his policies are helpful and correct, we are happy with and for him.

I hold no ill will toward our President. I think his policies are harmful. I am not the wonly one who thinks this way.

JAC : "If he had given a "ringing defense of his country," he wouldn't have gotten any credit for it by the commenters on this blog."

Obama is supposed to be a master of image control, but this incident proves he isn't. He only has one narrative and he's going to keep at it until his life story becomes the next "weapons of mass destruction."

I thought Obama saying that he was glad that Ortega didn't blame him for stuff that happened when he was three mos. old was sarcasm.

I'm reserving judgment. If President Obama is like this throughout his presidency, I'll call him a weakling. But he may come back with a solid left hook at some point, and he's got plenty of time left to do that -- you know, make a show of being reasonable, let the other guy look like a douche, and then drop him with a good punch.

I said: "Instead, we get a lame joke suggesting that he thinks it was all about HIM."

John said: This has become a really tired cliche. "He thinks it was all about him." Huh? No he doesn't.

I say: Well, when his country is insulted, and his sole response refers to his own infancy, it looks as if he does.

Perhaps he meant to belittle Noriega's speech -- and I do agree with you that saying much about it would have given it more dignity than it deserved. However, the effect, in combination with the dignity he lent to Noriega's speech by sitting through it in respectful silence, was to belittle his country. I hope that's not what he intended. Time will tell.

The next time Obama starts in about some injustice in the past in the US (slavery, women's rights, whatever), I am going to say, "hey, don't look at me, my family didn't arrive in the US until 1930 and I wasn't even BORN!"

"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."He wasn't blaming you, Barack, he was blaming America. That's still, to my knowledge, two different things.

Zokar said... "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old."

Obama is the President of the United States.

But when his county is insulted, his 1st (and 2nd and 3rd) impulse is not to defend the honor of his country, but accept the insult, divert it to what is to him a foreign entity - the United States - and then elevate himself above his own country..Good post. Despite what JAC said, his response basically saying "Don't blame me!" does show he still thinks "It is All About Him."

He didn't get the WhiteHouse and the immense fleet of carbon dioxide spewing vehicles as a reward for the wonderful "Me!" Obama is. It comes from what voters and taxpayers and legislators said he needs to fulfill his Office, not himself.

He represents America. All of America. Not U of CHicago intellegensia, his wealthy patrons, his Hyde Park homeboys. All of us. He is Head of State. His mandate and his power are coomensurate with his support.

Zokar - Thanks a lot. Your country appreciates you, you shallow, narcissist jerk..Obama does have a learning curve. He needs to get on it. When our country is assailed by various dictators and 2009 conventions and morality are retrocatively applied to 1920s US involvement in Latin America but not the Latin Leaders own odious conduct and firing squads at the time - our Head of State's 1st reaction should not be asserting he is personally pure and innocent...

A man with intellect and quit wit would have anticipated this anti-American stemwinder and prepared a brief response that would sell in this country as well as send the appropriate message to Venezuala (and not just Ortega).

Quiet strength.Our limited patience.Inscrutability.Humor with a hint of aggression.The transience of murderous tinpot regimes.All must come in hints, to be read as tea leaves.

He missed the opportunity, may not have even recognized it. He came close; his response was a tenth of what it could have been. If only he'd seen Bert Parks sing it. Better, if he'd only read Shakespeare rather than Alinsky.

But he's just Bert Convey, trying to keep his Gong Show guests in line.

Central America is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt and I guess after how many debts have been forgiven America is to blame because we aren't as ruthless to our neighbors as other "empires" have been throughout history.

For someone as smart as Althouse, it's kind of depressing that she consistently provides a forum for such idiocy. I can understand criticizing Obama for substantive, true "stumbles," but this? Where do you draw the line, Althouse? Are you a thoughtful blogger or a provider of cruel and disgusting comments sections?

The President, in my view (and others here), failed to respond to the smears by this Marxist thug.

He could have indirectly responded and talked about the dangers of power being concentrated in a few hands. And how while the US has made mistakes that the path towards replacing old oligarchies with new ones is just as wrong.

It's clear, to me, that at least in South America there's a battle of ideas between the anti-US socialists like Chavez and the pro-US forces like Columbia. We need to help the latter. At least rhetorically.

But our President gave no defense of us or pro-west democracies.

That's, well, indefensible.

And on the issue of cruel comments directed at the President, McChimpy Bushhitler agrees.

He's a total narcissist! That's the way he sees the whole world which explains why he ever helped his brother-in-the-hut or his immigration-challenged aunt or his other crazy brother we just learned about.

"At the start of the first plenary session at the Summit of the Americas later this morning, President Obama was asked what he thought of Chavez’s gift.

“You know, I thought it was one of Chavez’s books," Obama answered. "I was going to give him one of mine.”"

Why did he think the book Chavez gave was one of his? Because that's what he would have done. And of course he would want to give him one of his.

It may be cliche to say Obama thinks it is all about him.

Sometimes, cliches are true.

JAC, you are a Democrat. Don't let that blind you to the fact that Obama has real, legitimate flaws. They did not evaporate when he went from being your preferred candidate's foe to being your preferred party's candidate to being the President. He's still the same guy.

Where do you draw the line, Althouse? Are you a thoughtful blogger or a provider of cruel and disgusting comments sections?............ If anything Sullivan proves that one can be cruel and disgusting without a comment section.

Uh oh, you better watch out, Althouse! Zachary Paul"I Don't Live With My Mom Anymore!" Sire seems like he's getting awfully close to reporting you to Change.gov as a "provider of cruel and disgusting comments sections"! He'll do it too. There's a history of certain fags being enthusiastic supporters of government oppression. Look at Roy Cohn or J. Edgar Hoover.

Remember folks: criticism of the President has gone from being "the Highest Form of Patriotism" to "cruel and disgusting".

Remember folks: criticism of the President has gone from being "the Highest Form of Patriotism" to "cruel and disgusting".And McChimpy Bushhitler, stealer of two elections and creater of fascism (ask Olbermann he'll tell you) wants to know, "When did this rule come about?"

Great. Kneejerk defensiveness and blindness to the facts. I don't know what Ortega said and am not endorsing that.

But I will stress the point that our US government has, over the last 100+ years in Latin America overthrown democratically elected governments and kept dictatorships in power.

This is a fact of history.

* The Dictator Augusto Pinochet Of Chile, put in power in Chile with CIA assistance, overthrowing democratically elected Salvador Allende. Pinochet carried out abductions, torture and murders on a mass scale.

* Anastasio Somoza was from a ruling power and ruled Nicaragua as a corrupt dictator. With US backing. That led to a radical revolution, surprise, surprise.

* In El Salvador, the US backed an oligarchy that ruled with a brutal, iron fist. The "White Hand" death squads received training and carried out campaigns of abduction, torture and murder.

In Guatemala, the US supported a brutal military dictatorship for decades. With weapons, training, advice, and other interventions in their domestic affairs.

Latin America could not develop their own political systems because their neighbor to the north wanted it their way.

This list goes on and on and on and dates to the 19th century. We need to stop pretending this clear history did not happen.

Obama handled it right. He let people state their case without demanding that they hew to a false history.

And, it is decidely NOT patriotic to pretend these things didn't happen.

I caught JPZ on another blog comment describing the typical Althouse commentator as inbred racist homophobic idiots. Not only inaccurate, but a total dick move. All based on the fact that sometimes people have a different opinion than him.

Perhaps Barack Obama is given to "esprit d'escalier." He thought of a really good comeback after the meeting was over, but it was too late.

That "blaming me for things that happened when I was 3" business was a stumble. He should have said nothing.

Or, he could have said -- "Look™, the US made a lot of mistakes during the Cold War, but we also did an enormous amount of good, preventing many countries from falling into the orbit of the Soviet Union as, unfortunately, Cuba and Nicaragua did. To prevent the spread of communist totalitarianism in Europe, Asia and Latin America cost us hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. You would have it that we undertook this fight for the sake of profits, but this is a cynical slander, as I was just saying the other day to Bill Ayers. We did it to fulfill the idealistic goals of freedom and self-determination of nations. We stand for a free economy, freedom of speech, religion and the press, equal rights and the freedom of the individual to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Communism as it was practiced in the 70 years after the Russian Revolution, refuted all of these things as bourgeois vanity, in the words of several of my professors at Columbia, but they were wrong. Certainly our tactics at times were wrong. Certainly in the pursuit of these ideals we made costly mistakes. Certainly, some of the people in whom we entrusted authority to carry out these policies acted with cruelty and corruptly. In fact, I'm currently working with my staff on an eloquent apology for all those dreadful errors. But look™, you've completely ignored the sustained efforts of our government and its people to improve the lives of millions throughout Latin America, an effort we will continue until long after you have put that dopey uniform in a casket along with the rest of your sorry communist bones."

madawaskan .... Alpha- All that shit happened before Obama was even born..... .

No, it didn't. Everything I listed in the details happened during Obama's lifetime.

Somoza, Allende overthrow (and execution), the White Hand training and murder sprees in El Salvador, the bloody Guatemalen suppression, and more all happened during Obama's lifetime and much during his adult years.

Madawaskan puts false and lying words in my mouth:Let's see Alpha so Castro, Chavez good and legitimate.This is a real dishonest statement and cannot be supported by anything I said.

If I lived in Cuba or Venezuela, I'm the type of person who would be locked up by someone like Castro, and probably Chavez.

You've got such a simpleton's view of the world that you assume their are only 2 worldviews out there. One can't be critical of Castro as well as critical of the US history of support for murderous dictatorships throughout Latin America.

Then we have the typical reactionary liberal completely willing to criticize his own country's sins without acknowledging her contributions and missing the entire point.

Giving, along the way, the typical excuse that the peoples of Latin American were innocent victims of American acts and not really at all responsible for their own actions based on their own internal and historic grievances.

See, before the US came along, these people were living in peace and brotherhood. No internal divisions, no religious differences, no racial or ethnic differences.

Moron history.

And he thinks that liberalism has been given a bad name because of the smears of Limbaugh and conservatives.

And did that fact bother you at all...during the chummy meeting between President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in Crawford, Texas...the one with hand-holding?..... Yeap.. it's stuck in my craw that there was a Crown in Crawford.

How many were associated with Chavez...and what exactly, other than badmouthing America, has Chavez done that is so horribleAs President Obama has stated (as a candidate) the Caracas government has provided support for Marxist terror groups operating in Colombia that are trying to overthrow the government and establish a Marxist dictatorship.

I guess one can argue that Chavez knows nothing about it, that it's all rogue elements in his government.

Latin America has long been a mess and the US has intervened sometimes with horrible results (like with Somalia in the early 90s, the original intervention was sometimes quite appropriate and/or justified, but then it morphed into something else.) On the other hand, the US has done a lot of good in the region.

Acting/being bored wasn't a bad strategy, but was a missed opportunity. Perhaps the best approach would have been to make some ambiguous statement about the past and then to make a rousing speech about the future. Rip off MLK and talk of a dream of seeing Latin America be truly free and prosperous.

This would have required, however, an actual strategy for Latin America. I don't think Obama has one. (To be fair, I don't think Bush or Clinton had much of one beyond free trade, but that's much better than nothing.)

This was also an opportunity to outline what would normalize relations with Cuba. Our strategy, if you can call it that, vis-a-vis Cuba has been a complete failure. It's time to move forward, but again, that would require actually paying more than token attention to the issue.

In fact, I'm currently working with my staff on an eloquent apology for all those dreadful errors. Good for you. The time is long since past for the US to apologize. But if Obama or any Democrat did so he'd be torn apart.

No Republican would ever do it.

So, we'll have this stupid national dialogue, instead, where we pretend all that cruelty and US-supported bloodshed and violence never happened.

Far be it from irrelevant ranters on an irrelevant, ranting blog to understand how to consign the rants of a Nicaraguan politician to irrelevance.

You guys would inflate the significance of an ant if it would give you another hypothetical enemy to fight and feel self-important about. Pity you don't understand that it would do the same thing for the ant.

Imagine reading or reciting a history of our Civil War and only mentioning the actions by the North?

That'd be a ridiculous exercise.

But as we see here (again), the left's explanation of the history of Latin American consists solely and exclusively of US actions.

Some of those actions were, of course, indefensible. But many of those actions were in response to other actions by other players in Latin America.

It's a complex history (someone noted elsewhere Nietzsche's line about "truth being a woman") and to only look at US actions without also examining the precipitating events or the actions and history of others is silly.

What exactly has he done that directly effects YOU?Well, the attacks on 9/11 didn't directly affect me either.

So by that measure we shouldn't have done anything.

Okay, granted that's a extreme response (best I can come up with on a Sunday) but I think to measure or determine public policy solely on the basis of whether it affects me directly today is a short-sighted one.

Anyway, the issue on the table is the President's response (or lack of one) on the issue of whether the future of Latin America is with socialism or democracy.

You guys would inflate the significance of an ant if it would give you another hypothetical enemy to fight and feel self-important about. Pity you don't understand that it would do the same thing for the ant............................

Speaking for myself.. I have never been against any "hypothetical" enemies of the United States.

"Speaking for myself.. I have never been against any "hypothetical" enemies of the United States."

Except Ortega, apparently - assuming you find his words somehow damaging of the United States, an assumption understood by the perspective that they could be made all the more damaging by virtue of Obama's humbling reaction to them.

Take Ireland, for example. Or, as Henny Youngman would say, take Ireland please. It can be fairly claimed that perfidious Albion caused many of the problems in that small nation. It can also be fairly claimed that with the exception of the plunder of Ireland, the Irish took their opportunities and participated whenever possible in the crimes of the British Empire. In this country, despite many years of mistreatment, they were quite capable of rising to the challenge and being just as overbearing as their WASP overlords. There is no excluded middle. One can be oppressed in some situations and an oppressor in others......From what we know of the Mayans, Toltecs, Incas, and Aztecs we can discern that the American natives were quite capable of constructing their own hideous regimes without Spanish tutelage. To say that Latin America has suffered five hundred years of European oppression is to beg the question. What flaw is contained in the people of Latin America that makes them unable to effectively resist five hundred years of oppression? Daniel Ortega, despite credible charges of child molestation, was elected President of Nicaragua. This is a greater disgrace to the people of Nicaragua than it is to even Ortega. A man who violates the boundaries of his family like Ortega did will inevitably violate other boundaries......My thanks to SM Galbraith and others for a series of thoughtful posts.

Lem - If you ever took the time to actually read books and many of the articles that have appeared over the past 5 years or so you'd know that little if anything released was not already out there...........................

That's because I'm not interested in reading classified in information.........................

The fact that "others" may have taking it upon themselves to declassify classified information negates the value of the keeping classified information?........................

SMGalbraith: But as we see here (again), the left's explanation of the history of Latin American consists solely and exclusively of US actions.Yes, this is the Noam Chomsky school of Latin American history. It infantililizes Latin Americans and absolves them of any responsibility for their own actions. It's a perfect lens for the Obama administration to view the region, because it's essentially narcissistic: it's all about US.

Except Ortega, apparently - assuming you find his words somehow damaging of the United States, an assumption understood by the perspective that they could be made all the more damaging by virtue of Obama's humbling reaction to them............................

Um, Alpha and Jeremy, these so called leaders are more brutal and more repressive than the leaders they overthrew. More people have been killed by their death squads, more people imprisoned and tortured, more people have disappeared; all because they are worse dictators and tyrants. In, effect, when they talk about atrocity, they are talking about themselves. You keep defending these people so one can only assume you both agree with their governance and methods. I guess by your thinking, there are good brutal dictators and bad brutal dictators. As long as they are leftist revolutionaries they are good. If they are right wing military types they are bad. Too bad if the people still have to suffer atrocities, crimes against humanity, and total iron fisted repression; these are the good guys doing it.

Now I ask you, why would I bother to view a video of Barak Hussein Obama posted anywhere online? Huh?

Remember the home experiment of a string suspended by a pencil in a glass of supersaturated salt water I presume we all did the third grade? The water is left to evaporate and the salt crystallizes on the string demonstrating to children saturation through evaporation. By way of analogy that's me -- the hapless suspended string encrusted with salt crystals.

I don't mind at all reading about what the man actually does, but I go lengths to control my life so that I do not see or hear that man one more nanosecond.

montana urban legend said..."Does anyone here distinguish between policy and advocacy? Is that distinction even perceptible here? How about between wisdom and virtue? Anyone? Anyone?"

You're kidding, right?

Here?

"Distinguishing" between anything they can't pin on Obama as being bad...and actually considering the long term goals or strategy of the administration...or even if it would eventually be good for America?

Alpha, you missed the boat so completely on what I wrote, I can't even begin to untangle it.

But the point is, what you as a left-wing asshole can say in a meeting with someone talking smack about the the US is different from what the president of the US can say.

By accepting the presidency, Obama gave up his right to enjoy the pleasurable vanities of joining in the chorus of global America-hatred. We send him to overseas meetings like this to represent the entire nation, not just himself.

I really don't care how he feels about the Bay of Pigs or the overthrow of Allende, anymore than I care what you think about it or you should care what I think about it. As the chief spokesman for this country, however, he simply should not concede to one-sided criticisms of American history. He didn't have to contradict Ortega's rant, but he could have come back with something that reflected the pride Americans justly have in what we have also done to better the lives of Latin Americans.

The US has done a hell of a lot more good in that region than Daniel Ortega. It's a bit rich for a US president to feel the need to sit still for a lecture from him.

Alpha,I would provide the links. Unfortunately those utopian Democrat paradises have no free press. They kill, arrest, or shut down anyone who reports on their abuses. Even American reporters know better. They write travel pieces.

John Stodder, for someone who seems so intelligent, I can never understand why you entertain such ridiculous ideas as these:

"By accepting the presidency, Obama gave up his right to enjoy the pleasurable vanities of joining in the chorus of global America-hatred."

Is it because you work in communications that you would say something like this? Do you really not understand that Obama belittled Ortega's rant, and that this act of belittling might have been effective, even thought-provoking? Do you really think that every grievance expressed against us - no matter how trivial, inarticulate, or irrelevant to the setting, represents some kind of irreparable harm to the U.S. unless we mount a Nixonian denunciation of it? Should we launch a verbal air-scale attack onto such a nobody? Come on. Get serious.

He could have pantomimed hanging himself by a rope, sticking out his tongue and making choking noises.

Or, pantomime brutally pounding himself on the side of his own head, rolling his eyes and extending his tongue, then drop face down on the surface in front of him as if he had been knocked out.

Or, grab his own throat by both hands and pantomime strangling himself, rattling his own head back and forth as if helpless in another's hands and as if being murdered, rolling back his eyes until only the whites showed, finishing with chocking gasps.

What in the world is the President of the United States doing listening to this?

You can read it any day on Daily Kos.

Time is precious, Barack. Go spend some with your children. Or with someone who has something good to say about our country.

I quote with approval Mrs. Whatsit:

"Well, John, a ringing defense of his country might have been nice, and would have been second nature to most of those who have inhabited his office before him. Instead, we get a lame joke suggesting that he thinks it was all about HIM."

Hey Alpha,If you hate this country so much and can't stand what was done, why not leave? Go live in one of those workers paradises. Then you can be a winess to the cruelty and barbarism of those people. You can write about it until they kill you or disappear you.

You keep leaving out one tiny detail on the Beauchamp nonsense; one of his relatives or friends; girl friend, wife, sister, was collecting and editing his stories. It was a real ethical flap that that outlet swept under the rug. And that's a fact jack.

Consider Nicaragua, where Daniel Ortega, like his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, is using the trappings of democracy to impose more and more authoritarian control.

Mr. Ortega's Soviet-backed regime ruled Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990. His Sandinista Party failed in comeback tries in 1996 and 2001, but, at age 60, he gained success two years ago, winning with just 37 percent in a disputed vote. Then, last November, his party won municipal elections with the help of millions of dollars from Mr. Chavez and what the Wall Street Journal called the use of "violence [as] a key campaign tactic."Nicaragua is a basket case, with GDP per capita barely above $1,000. The economy is propped up by loans from the International Monetary Fund, budget support from Europeans, oil from Mr. Chavez, and, surprisingly enough, significant help from U.S. taxpayers through the federal Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), whose funds are supposed to go to countries "based on their performance in governing justly, investing in their citizens, and encouraging economic freedom."

Nicaragua, which Freedom House rates only "partly free" with a "downward trend arrow," would hardly seem to meet these criteria. After the fall election, even the MCC threw up its bureaucratic hands and suspended the remaining $64 million of its grants to Nicaragua.

The president of the Nicaraguan-American Chamber of Commerce called the MCC cutoff a "nuclear bomb on the economy," but Ortega shrugged it off, saying that he can get more aid from Russia and Venezuela, perhaps overlooking that both those countries rely heavily on a commodity whose price has dropped by three-fourths in a year.

Much of the world has lost patience with Ortega, with possibly dire consequences. Francisco Aguirre, president of the National Assembly's Economic and Budget Commission, says that 2009 "looms catastrophic for Nicaragua. Our ills are compounded by our severe governance problems. All of this political uncertainty is ... turning off the donor community that sees democracy, transparency, and rule of law as important to development."

Donors aren't alone. Nicaragua is also chasing away foreign investors, who could be the nation's salvation. The cost of doing business and committing capital in a country so lacking in the rule of law is an exposure many businesses see as too steep a price to pay.

A good example of the problem is explained in a new paper by Hal Scott, director of the Program on International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School. He showed how Nicaragua concocted Law 364 to the severe detriment of foreign businesses. It "establishes enormous advantages for local plaintiffs - such as an irrefutable presumption of causation based on minimal standards of proof - as well as disadvantages for the foreign defendants - such as requiring them to deposit large bonds with the court just to gain access to the proceedings."

The result is that these cases end up burdening U.S. courts, which is precisely what the Nicaraguan authorities seem to want. "In essence, the foreign operations of companies with U.S. parents are subject to U.S. legal standards that are very different from those governing the conduct of purely domestic foreign firms," writes Mr. Scott.

It's not just U.S. businesses that are targeted. In a sensational rape and murder case in Managua, a young American, Eric Volz, was imprisoned for a year in what the New York Times called "a political spectacle," then finally exonerated. "Nicaragua's justice system has found itself on trial," wrote Marc Lacey of the Times.

While rule of law may sound arcane or incidental to the outside observer, it is vital to the foreign businesses that will help Nicaragua ultimately prosper. And a prosperous Nicaragua - both as a trading partner and a stable democracy that doesn't play footsie with the likes of Venezuela - is, absolutely, in the best interest of the United States.

"Or, grab his own throat by both hands and pantomime strangling himself, rattling his own head back and forth as if helpless in another's hands and as if being murdered, rolling back his eyes until only the whites showed, finishing with chocking gasps."

Sounds about as effective and conveys about as much gravitas as whipping out dildos and having Ortega and Obama beat each other about the body with them.

Do you ever think that constructions such as "tongue-lashing" are intentionally incongruous? A tongue is not the best implement for delivering a heavy blow, let alone a lashing. But oh, does it sate one's need for drama to think of it that way! The drama! The drama! I'm going to have an Obamagasm over the drama!

Peter V. Bella said..."Hey Alpha, If you hate this country so much and can't stand what was done, why not leave?"

Same thing I said to The Chipper.

I think if you and others here really believe President Obama is taking us down the wrong road, instead of bitching and whining about everything he says or does, you should get your asses out of the country.

"What's your impression of Bush kissing and holding hands with the Saudi in Crawford?"

Well, I didn't much like that either.

My guess is that you will not see Obama put himself in a position like this again. It's absolutely no win.

Obama's response "well, I thought it was 50 minutes long" is actually a form of slapdown. But it's way too cute and sophisticated. While I would have preferred a spirited (but brief) response, silence wasn't the worst reply.

The real error was being there to listen to it in the first place. He should have discovered some pressing business when Ortega was speaking.

"So what should he have done?"We are all amateurs.. so I'm not sure we are the people to turn to for ideas (off the tops of our heads)... The point is, Obama is too... he could have made the effort to learn some diplomatic speak or taken a lesson on how to deal with foreign leaders on rants... but he chose not to.. and his instinct was to just sit and take it (my instinct would have been to step out for a coffee).

The article quotes The Wall Street Journal,Francisco Aguirre, president of the National Assembly's Economic and Budget Commission,Hal Scott, director of the Program on International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School, and takes statistics from Freedom House and the federal Millennium Challenge Corporation and it's all a pack of lies, they are all liars.

Meanwhile you call Stodder a liar with no supporting evidence and Althouse is forever impuned or some such nonsense because some guy-Beauchamp who has nothing to do with the subject at hand might have lied about the small stuff which means we should believe he is telling the truth about the big stuff.

President Daniel Ortega Saavedra beams from the billboards, promising “Citizens Power” as a solution to Nicaragua’s endemic poverty. “The world’s poor arise!” the signs say. But beneath the billboards, on walls and benches all over town, others have scrawled “No to CPC. No to dictatorship.”The graffiti alludes to Citizens Power Councils — or C.P.C.’s. In December, Mr. Ortega established the neighborhood committees, which are controlled by his left-wing Sandinista party and administer antipoverty programs, despite a vote against the plan by the National Assembly.Mr. Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla leader, maintains that the councils are meant only to let community leaders have a say in where and how government money is spent.

But opposition leaders say the councils are another step in what they call the Ortega administration’s drift toward an authoritarian and secretive government that does not have to answer to the legislature — mostly because the president controls tens of millions of dollars a year in aid from Venezuela.Some of the president’s opponents charge that the Citizens Power Councils are nothing more than patronage mills, channeling government largess to supporters of the party, the Sandinista National Liberation Front.

Mr. Ortega has made no attempt to hide his desire to make an end run around the National Assembly. He declared last fall that the legislature’s vote against the councils was intended “to deny the right of the people to exercise power” and “to keep ministers from governing directly with the people.”

“It is the people who have the final say on the system they want,” Mr. Ortega declared at a rally on Dec. 1.

Opposition leaders complain the councils smack of similar party-controlled organs in totalitarian governments like Cuba’s, where local committees of party loyalists not only influence who gets government benefits but also spy on political opponents.“It’s part of a vision that President Ortega and his wife, Rosario Murillo, have to destroy the model of representative democracy and replace it with a direct democracy,” said José Pallais, a Liberal Party leader. “The C.P.C. serve as a fundamental element, a strategy, to control the society, to spy on the people.”.

People like Jeremy and AL do not want any Dissent in The Age of Obama.

Leftists (I used to be one) believe America is the cause of all Evil -- especially when a Republican president is in charge (Has jeremy or AL ever defended Bush? No. They only love their country when a Democratic President is running it).

By winking and nodding at at ortega and Chavez, President Obama is saying that being Pro-democracy does not matter in the world. Realist Politics (or as I call it Nixonian Realims against Wilsonian Idealism which President Bush practiced) is about sacrifcing populations to maintain stability on the chess board.

And yet, after 90 days, people like jeremy and AL believe that President Obama should not be dissented against. I guess if President Obama says Jews should go the ovens and if the polls says it is good, Jeremy and AL will support it, since whatever is popular is also good.

JSF - I seldom respond to your never ending right wing drivel, but when you say: "And yet, after 90 days, people like jeremy and AL believe that President Obama should not be dissented against."

You're lying through your teeth.

I have no problem with anybody criticizing Obama, I have problems with some of his actions myself, but here, 99% of the bitching and whining is not relevant to the situation at hand after about 90 days.

Obama embracing Chavez at the Latin American conference? Get real...Bush kissed and held hands with a Saudi Prince in Crawford. Did anybody here bitch about that?

Literally everything Obama says or does is taken to task, with much of what he says and does representing the very start of a four year term, with absolutely no evidence that his measures will fail...only some kind of bizarre hope that he does. It makes no sense, considering where the economy is right now.

No CEO of a major company, inheriting such an economic mess, would be put under such a microscope after such a short period of time.

You and others here just enjoy bitching and I find most of it nothing more than partisan bullshit.

Where where YOU when Bush ran the debt and deficit up? Only decided it was a problem after he left office?

5. Make sure you cater to the need of Right Wingers to feel that they care more about lives than the evil, lying libruls do. Even if the Righties do a shitty job of convincing anyone of that. In fact, their insecurity over the latter is what causes their need to proclaim the former.

Do you really not understand that Obama belittled Ortega's rant, and that this act of belittling might have been effective, even thought-provoking?.

You saw it as "belittling?" Based on what? The 50-minute comment, maybe, was a tiny zinger. But the following comment was not belittling:

"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We've all heard these arguments before."

I don't think it's unfair to interpret that comment as, a) Ortega's right. I have no disagreement with anything he said. b) However, don't forget, I had nothing to do with it, so don't go blaming Barack Obama. I replaced all the bastards who mistreated Latin America so badly. c) Can we focus on the future, please, since I can't do anything about our sordid past, and wasn't responsible for it?

To me, his comment quite clearly was an attempt to separate himself, but not his country, from the history being described and interpreted in Ortega's speech.

And to underscore something that shouldn't have to be said: There are numerous actions taken in our name as Americans in Latin America that we should be ashamed of. But that's just one side of the story. If I were a left-wing president of the US, the way I would have threaded that particular needle would be to say something like, "I'm not here to refute everything Mr. Ortega has said, and he might be surprised to know I agree with some of his criticisms. However, let's not forget the other side of the ledger," and then gone on to talk about, oh, the Peace Corps, or the billions in foreign and humanitarian aid the US government has provided, as well as the efforts of private entities like Doctors Without Borders and various religious organizations.

Do you really think that every grievance expressed against us - no matter how trivial, inarticulate, or irrelevant to the setting, represents some kind of irreparable harm to the U.S. unless we mount a Nixonian denunciation of it?.No, and I didn't say that. And I don't think Obama needed to walk out or throw a fit.

But I do think you reach a point where doing nothing to counter anti-Americanism erodes our legitimacy. This matters not because I'm oversensitive to criticism of the US, but because of the unique role the US has and will continue to play promoting democracy, economic freedom and civil rights across the world. The UN is so corrupt and compromised that in effect there is no entity out there enforcing peace, freedom and the pursuit of prosperity as a norm. There's just the US and a few of its inconstant allies.

When we start apologizing for ourselves -- and I'm not saying Obama did that in this instance, exactly -- we put ourselves on the same level as international actors that have done far worse things, and that are never expected to apologize.

P.S. It's funny you cite Nixon as the example of an out-of-control jingoism. I don't think there has been a president in my lifetime who had a more subtle appreciation of the difference between what foreign leaders have to say for public consumption and what they say and do behind the scenes.